Saturday, September 26, 2015

Volkswagen cheating the EPA’s emission test might have sent shockwaves but
it didn’t surprise or shock me that a billion dollar corporation cheated on a
test for six years straight that would have cost them billions if they failed
it. It should be common knowledge that a company as large as Volkswagen sole
aim is to make returns on their significant investments and are liable to do
whatever it takes to avoid or eliminate anything that impedes their simple if
not narrow objective.

However, I grant you that if this was strictly true, Volkswagen executives
and engineers it might have calculated that it would have been cheaper for them
fail the emission test than cheat and deal with the mother of all nuclear
fallouts if they got caught. Since they admitted they cheated, the company has
lost a third of its value, drawn the ire of their customers, lost their CEO,
opened themselves to a wrath of potential legal cases and fines, and suffered reputational
damage that’s looking irreparable.

The thing that surprises me about the whole debacle is that Volkswagen knew
that they would fail the diesel emissions tests without cheating, knew what
would happen they got caught, were aware it might have been cheaper and whole
lot less stressful to fail the test but decided to cheat anyway.

However, what also concerns me is not that they were prepared to roll the
dice and pay the price to avoid failing the diesel emissions test, it’s the
fact that they knew that their cars are more harmful to the environment (not to
mention people) than they let on and were prepared to sell 11m polluting diesel
cars around the world just to make their numbers.

Volkswagen could face billions in fines and a criminal investigation in the
US alone, a wrath of lawsuits from VW customers across Europe (Europe
represents diesel’s biggest market) who fell hook, line, and sinker for the “clean
diesel” phenomenon, and even repercussions in Germany as according to Alexander
Dobrindt, Germany’s Transport Minister, “ the
carmaker had manipulated test results for about 2.8 million vehicles in the
country”[1]. The company
said that it will set aside $7.3 billion for fines and but with scale of the
scandal expanding at every turn, it look like they’re going to need more than
that to say the least.

In sum, Volkswagen
will have hell to pay as VW’s emissions test scandal is only getting started as
it’s quite clear that they aren’t the only carmakers trying to deceive regulators
and customers.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Ad blocking is not or
revolutionary and have been around for a decade but the effect they could have
publishers and advertisers could change the shape of the internet as we know it.

The rise of ad blocking has
sent a silent shivers down the spine of both publishing and advertising
executives backs as a lingering threat in the wings has now taken centre stage.
However, neither party can be shocked with explosive rise in the popularity of ad
blocking as nobody likes ads on any platform but everybody hates ads on the
internet.

People don’t like ads on TV or
radio because they get in the way of favorite shows but no one likes ads on the
internet because, intrusive, creepy and annoying. They slow down sites, are a
little too on the nose about our preferences and are getting harder to get rid
of as almost all of them are built using flash, possibly the worst software
known to man.

Being someone who reads a bunch
of articles across a number of sites, I more than most people experience
annoying ads that slow down my mobile never mind the site I’m on because
advertisers, for some strange reason, like paying publishers to run ads they’re
aware annoys their target audience so much that are flocking to providers of
software that threatens their entire industry.

Apple opening the market for ad
blockers on the iOS9 OS is a clear shot across the bow of Google but whether
Apple would have opened up the market for ad blocking or not, I suspect the clamor
to block ads would still be prevalent. As mentioned earlier, people generally
don’t like advertising (particularly advertising that’s hard to get rid of) on
any platform you can name but unlike other platform, they’re more willing put
up with the excesses of a 30 second TV spot than they would a load time lag
inducing banner ad when they visit a site.

This quite a strange fact given
that we’re all aware that ads are all over the place because no one wants to
pay for content (especially in written form) and without those screen eating, emanating
out of nowhere, and super creepy ads, all our favorite sites would have to
charge us for access to their content or go out of business. Whether we like it
or not, ads serves as a necessary evil that ensures that the internet stays a
largely wallet free zone as far as content is concerned and doesn’t become one
big paywall after another. However, no matter how much publishers and
advertisers repeat this line, ad blocking will continue in popularity and
thanks to Apple’s none too subtle two fingers ups (not the peace sign, the
other one) in the direction of Google and Facebook, the publishing and advertising
industries are going to be even tougher industries to crack than ever before.

Online ad’s already suffer from
the much talked about viewability issue where the majority of ads online aren’t
seen and if ad blocking proliferates, they’re likely to stay that way. The easy answer is that publishers and
advertisers should get creative and produce better ads or at least abandon
using ads people hate (pre-roll, pop ups) but these answers are often provided
by people who aren’t affected by ad blocking or in some cases, directly benefit
from ad blocking.

In sum, I’ve always been of the
opinion that the only question that really matters when writing about a technology
is “who get screwed?” With ad blocking, the answer to that question can be
larger than first thought.

There’s nothing more terrifying than a public body out for blood and when
the Nevada State Athletic Commission basically did a hit job on Nick Diaz’s
career for the heinous crime of smoking pot and showing little to no remorse
about it, MMA fighters and fans got a whiff of how arbitrary sports law really
is.

Nick Diaz losing his career for smoking pot is bad enough but Diaz getting
five years for weed when his last opponent (Anderson Silva no less) popped
positive for steroids and only got one year when he should got three really
shows how bad NSAC suck at sticking to their own rules. Diaz’s ban is so egregious
that he will be banned longer than first and second time PED users, those who
submit fake tests, wife batterers and animal abusers.

Diaz has paid a hefty price not for smoking weed but getting under the skin
of NSAC as he tested positive for weed use three times and the commission,
taking Diaz’s customary lack of remorse for breaking their rules to heart,
sought to effectively end his career which could have been even worse if the
other commissioners members followed commissioner Pat Lundvall’s suggestion to
ban him for life.

However one can’t really be surprised as the NSAC v Diaz debacle is another
example of why sports fans across the board hate the organizations that
regulate and/or run their sport and the people who run them from the NFL’s Roger
Goddell to FIFA’s Sepp Blatter as their power and the rules they impose on
sports appear to be arbitrary and grossly unjust. Nick Diaz will likely see his
5 year ban whittled down to maybe 2 or 3 years after a lengthy and costly legal
battle or even overturned completely due to NSAC’s decision drawing the wrath
of the entire MMA community.

The NSAC were clearly out to get Diaz as they ignored two clean tests
carried out to WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) certified procedures and chose
to bury Diaz based on a positive test not carried out under WADA’s standards. It’s
bad enough that the NSAC was banned for years but the reason is why Diaz being
tested for and punished for using cannabis is the real concern at heart as
there’s no advantage to be gained over a clean opponent when smoking marijuana
at least in comparison to anabolic steroids which promotes faster recovery
times, greater muscle mass and endurance.

With this in mind, it’s hard to fathom why fighters could spend up to five years
or even the rest of their lives banned from the sport they chose because state athletic
commissions and/or fight promotions have seriously prudish attitude to
recreational drugs which puts them on the wrong side of the growing trend in
the US of a more relaxed attitude toward drugs, cannabis especially.

Nothing hurt fans and brought the sport in disrepute than when Anderson
Silva, arguably the greatest MMA fighter ever, tested positive for steroids leaving
the whole of MMA in a state of depression but no one battled an eyelid when Nick
Diaz, a real fan favorite, tested positive for marijuana not because Anderson
Silva has a greater standing in the sport (although it was part of it) but nobody
cared except the UFC and NSAC.

In sum, Nick Diaz may have paid the price for the NSAC taking his defiance
personally but the real question is why it was possible he could get banned in
the first place.